Tag Archives: Leaf

Post navigation

Las Vegas, Nevada – the latest of many places in America joined by the shared ignominy of senseless mass violence.

Each victim (and there are so many [1]) deserve respect – their lives, their stories, their memory, honoured. Their families should be allowed to mourn, their community given space to heal.

Their loss should not be used as an ideological segue to opportunistically push an unrelated viewpoint. To do so would be obnoxious, like someone attending a wake so they could try and sell life insurance to those who are grieving.

And yet, Dr Caroline Leaf has done just that, using the deaths of nearly five-dozen people as an opportunity to push the idea that psychiatric medications are somehow to blame for the actions of those who perpetrate mass murder (http://drleaf.com/blog/mental-health-news-october-2017/).

“One factor that is rarely discussed in both the mainstream media and among politicians is psychiatric drug-induced violence. It is too easy to label the perpetrator as an evil maniac with mental health problems without looking at the correlation between psychotropic drugs and violence.”

In my opinion, I think it’s abhorrent that Dr Leaf would be so callous as to use such an abject tragedy to push her ideological barrow, but sadder still that she is simply wrong.

From 1996 to 2011, the use of any psychotropic medication in Australia roughly doubled (from about 55 to 130 ‘defined daily doses per 1000 population per day’ [2: p234, 3]). In the same period, Australia’s number of mass shootings fell to zero. Australia’s gun-related homicide and suicide rate also fell [4].

Why? Because after the tragedy of Port Arthur in 1996, the Australian government introduced gun law reform, drastically reducing the number of guns available within the general population. Admittedly, experts argue whether the gun law reform was a decisive factor or just one of many in the reduction of gun-related deaths in Australia [4].

But irrespective, the statistics decimate Dr Leaf’s irrational hypothesis on psychiatric medications. There is no link to psychiatric medications and mass murder. Indeed, those who suffer from mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence, not the cause of it [5, 6].

Dr Leaf attempts to soften the blow at the end of her newsletter. “That is not to say everyone who takes these medications will become violent – we should not fear or isolate people that are suffering from mental health disorders”. But her repeated claim that these egregious acts of violence are caused by psychiatric medications makes her words ring hollow.

In publishing her latest blog, Dr Leaf’s motives may have been benevolent, but her actions have left much to be desired. She has dishonoured the victims of Vegas. She has targeted the wrong cause. Her actions have created many more victims of what is already a senseless tragedy.

Since her recent less-than-successful attempt at portraying herself as a mental health expert, Dr Leaf has been laying low on social media, sticking to bland, innocuous quotes or passages of scripture.

Today, she thought it was safe enough to pop her head up from the trenches to fire off another opinionated volley on mental well-being, with a quote from one of her favourite authors, Peter Kinderman:

“It’s our framework of understanding the world, not our brains and not even the events that happen to us – not nature and not nurture – that determines our thoughts, emotions, behaviours and, therefore, our mental health.”

Dr Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. Without any training or professional experience in mental illness, she has also taken it upon herself to act as an expert on mental health within the Christian church.

Unfortunately, posting quotes like today’s offering only further destroys her flagging credibility among those with professional psychiatric experience, and adds to the confusion of the rest of the Christian church when it comes to understanding mental illness.

There are two main problems with Dr Leaf’s meme: the quote itself and it’s source.

The quote itself is wafer-thin, unable to stand up to even the most basic interrogation. For example, we know through basic common sense that the brain changes how we think, our moods, our emotions and our behaviours. We change our mood, our emotions and our alertness every time we have a cup of coffee, or a glass of wine. Hallucinogenic medications like LSD definitely change our framework of understanding the world. Coffee, alcohol, and illicit substances like LSD all change the mood or experience of the person using them because they all temporarily alter the function of the users brain.

Though it’s not just external substances that change how we experience our external and internal worlds, but our own internal hormonal ecosystem changes our emotions, our moods, our thoughts and our behaviours. This isn’t so obvious for most men as our hormones are fairly constant, though testicular failure is known to result in reduced energy, vitality, or stamina; depressed mood or diminished sense of well-being; increased irritability; and difficulty concentrating and other cognitive problems. For the female gender, monthly hormonal changes can sometimes result in sudden, marked changes in emotions, moods, thoughts and behaviours.

There are a lot of other reasons why the brain controls the mind, and our mental health, which I’ve also discussed numerous times in other blogs (here, here and here)

If you aren’t satisfied with a common sense approach, then consider the scientific evidence that personality, the name that we give to our inbuilt ‘framework of understanding the world’ is largely genetic, and dependent on the function of various neurotransmitter systems [1-4].

So to suggest that the brain is not responsible for our moods, our emotions, our thoughts and our behaviours isn’t supported by the weight of scientific evidence.

The quote by Kinderman doesn’t stop there, but suggests that “not even the events that happen to us … determines our thoughts, emotions, behaviours”, something that also flies in the face of current scientific evidence. For example, the other forty percent of personality is determined by our environment (specifically the ‘non-shared’ environment, the environment outside of our parental influence) [5, 6]. And common psychiatric illnesses are associated with early childhood adversity, such as schizophrenia [7] and ADHD [8]. So again, the quote is unscientific.

Who then is this Kinderman guy, and why does he disagree with the scientific literature?

Peter Kinderman is a Professor of Psychology at University of Liverpool, and the President-elect of the British Psychological Society. He’s a highly outspoken critic of modern psychiatry and what he perceives to be the medicalisation of normal moods and emotions and overuse of medications to treat these non-existent diagnoses. Kinderman believes that it’s our learning history that shapes the paths that our lives take, and so if we simply understand our personal models of the world and how they were shaped by the events and experiences to which we’ve been exposed, we can simply think our way out of any disease process [9].

Kinderman has come out in favour of talking treatments for psychosis in schizophrenia instead of medication, when there’s no scientific proof of benefit for psychosocial therapies in schizophrenia [10, 11] (and here).

This, and his staunch opposition of the DSM5 as invalid, makes me concerned about his bias against modern psychiatry, despite it’s many advances, scientifically and clinically.

However, I’m surprised that Kinderman would make such a statement because it’s such an asinine argument, I find it hard to believe that it came from a professor of psychology. Kinderman would surely recognise the role of biology in our mental health and wellbeing, even if he doesn’t agree with how it’s managed. Perhaps there’s an alternative explanation. Perhaps Kinderman didn’t say what Dr Leaf has claimed?

The answer is, he does, and he doesn’t.

Dr Leaf has quoted Kinderman correctly. Today’s quote is taken directly out of Kindermans 2014 book, “The New Laws of Psychology” [9], on the penultimate page of his introduction. So he does say that our brains and our experiences aren’t relevant for our mental health. But then again, in a blog on the militant anti-psychiatry blog ‘Mad in America’, Kinderman wrote this:

“I’ve spent much of my professional life studying psychological aspects of mental health problems. Inevitably, this has also meant discussing the role of biology. I hope I’ve made some progress in understanding these issues, in working out how the two relate to each other, and the implications for services. That’s my academic day-job. But it’s not just academic for me. I’m probably not untypical of most people reading this; I can see clear examples of how my experiences may have affected my own mental health, but I can also see reasons to suspect biological, heritable, traits. As in all aspects of human behaviour, both nature and nurture are involved and they have been intimately entwined in a complex interactive dance throughout my childhood and adult life.” http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/03/brain-baked-beans/

So he seems confused, both recognising that biological traits influence psychiatric illness, then denying it.

Personally, I disagree with the quote from his book, although I’m just a suburban GP from Australia, so what would I know, right? Though I think the evidence I’ve cited is on my side, and Kinderman is not without his critics who are more than his academic equal.

It also concerns me because the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that psychiatric illnesses have no biological basis, and therefore psychiatric medications have no place in treatment of them. But as I outlined previously, there is good evidence for the beneficial effects of medications for schizophrenia and ADHD amongst other mental health disorders.

Dr Leaf continues to ignore the scientific evidence for the biological basis for mental ill-health, medications for their treatment, and even the most basic of all that our mind is a product of our brain. Instead, she’s nailed her colours to her mast and aligned herself with outspoken authors on the fringe of modern neuroscience. Rather than addressing the science behind her opposition to modern psychiatry and neuroscience, she has resorted to hiding behind their quotes, a ‘me-too’ commentator, rather than an actual expert.

Of more importance is the confusion that this brings to the vulnerable Christians who follow her social media “fan sites”. The more Dr Leaf criticises psychiatric medications and condemns their prescription and usage, the more likely it is that someone will come to serious harm when they inappropriately cease their medications. And if Dr Leaf won’t come to her senses, our church leaders are going to have to take action, before it’s too late.

Today on her Facebook feed, Caroline Leaf posted a quote which said, “Your behavior can and does dictate your genetic destiny”. Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. In isolation, it sounds like she has found confirmation of her view that our thoughts and behaviour control the physical properties of our DNA (Leaf, 2013, p35).

However, I wanted to look at the quote in a broader context, because in the broader context, the quote still doesn’t confirm Dr Leaf’s teaching.

The quote comes from an American doctor, Sharon Moalem. Dr Moalem is obviously a smart man. According to Wikipedia, “Dr. Moalem is an expert in the fields of rare diseases, neurogenetics, and biotechnology. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling book ‘Survival of the Sickest’ and ‘How Sex Works’. Moalem has cofounded two biotechnology companies and is the recipient of 19 patents for his inventions in biotechnology and human health.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Moalem)

It’s not that Dr Moalem’s quote is wrong. In the book from which the quote is taken, Dr Moalem discusses the expression of genes (Moalem, 2014). There is no doubt that our behaviour affects the expression of genes. For example, when the body encounters a high level of dietary iron (ie: we eat a big juicy steak), a series of steps activates a gene to promote the production of ferritin, a protein that helps to carry iron in the blood stream (Strachan and Read, 2011, p375-6). These changes in genetic expression are mostly protective (for example, ferritin is used to keep toxic elemental iron from damaging our tissues). There are some behaviours that will override the body’s protection, for example, excessive exposure to UV radiation will eventually lead to skin cancer. But overall, the changes in genetic expression that our behaviour causes are protective, and do not adversely affect our health.

Unlike Dr Leaf, Dr Moalem does not promote the notion that our behaviour changes the genes themselves. Neither does he promote that our behaviour, in isolation, is the only modifier of our genetic expression. The quote that Dr Leaf used came from the second chapter of Dr Moalem’s book, “Inheritance: How Our Genes Change Our Lives, and Our Lives Change Our Genes”. Really, the title says it all. Our behaviour influences our genetic destiny, but our genes influence our behaviour just as much, if not more.

For example, small variations in the genes that code for our smell sensors or the processing of smells can change our preferences for certain foods just as much as cultural exposure. Our appreciation for music is often changed subtly between individuals because of changes in the structure of our ears or the nerves that we use to process the sounds. The genetic structure of the melanin pigment in our skin changes our interaction with our environment because of the amount of exposure to the sun we can handle. Our genetic destiny is also largely influenced by our environment, most of which is also beyond our choice (Lobo and Shaw, 2008).

So your behaviour can and does influence your genetic destiny, but your genetic destiny is more influenced by our genes themselves, and the environment that is beyond our control.

This is an anonymised screen shot taken from Dr Leaf’s Facebook feed just now, showing the very sensible reply of a Canadian dietician to Dr Leaf’s ill-informed assertion. It’s possible that Dr Leaf’s Facebook minders could delete the dietician’s comments or the post altogether, so I wanted to ensure it was saved for the public record.

In fairness to Dr Leaf, I will post her correction if she is willing to make one.

Yes, sometimes envy isn’t good for us. Emotions guide our thought process, and like all emotions that are out of balance, too much envy can cloud our better rational judgement and bias our perception of the world. Thankfully, envy doesn’t literally eat out our hearts or literally cause brain damage.

If anything, envy when experienced in a balanced way can actually improve our brain functioning. According to real cognitive neuroscientists, envy and regret are emotions that help us because they both fulfil the role of effectively evaluating our past actions, which improves our choices in the future. As Coricelli and Rustichini noted, “envy and regret, as well as their positive counterparts, share the common nature that is hypothesized in the functional role explanation: they are affective responses to the counterfactual evaluation of what we could have gotten had we made a different choice. Envy has, like regret, a functional explanation in adaptive learning.” [1]

When it comes to the human psyche, there is no black or white, good vs evil distinction between different feelings or emotions. B-grade life coaches and slick pseudoscience salespeople dumb down our emotions into a false dichotomy because it helps sell their message (and their books). Every emotion can be either helpful or unhelpful depending on their context in each individual.

As Skinner and Zimmer-Gembeck wrote, “Emotion is integral to all phases of the coping process, from vigilance, detection, and appraisals of threat to action readiness and coordinating responses during stressful encounters. However, adaptive coping does not rely exclusively on positive emotions nor on constant dampening of emotional reactions. In fact, emotions like anger have important adaptive functions, such as readying a person to sweep away an obstacle, as well communicating these intentions to others. Adaptive coping profits from flexible access to a range of genuine emotions as well as the ongoing cooperation of emotions with other components of the action system.” [2]

If you find your thoughts and feelings tinged by the greenish hue of envy, don’t worry, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Your heart isn’t going to consume itself and you won’t sustain any brain damage. Use envy or regret as tools of learning, tools to help you evaluate your choices so that you make a better choice next time. Having balanced emotions is the key to learning and growing, coping with whatever obstacles life throws at us.

Tonight as I was flicking through Facebook one last time, a post caught my eye. It read,

“The thought you are thinking right now is impacting every single one of the 75-100 trillion cells in your brain and body at quantum speeds”

Dr Leafs social media gem gave me an eerie sense of deja vu. It was only the end of October when she posted the same factoid on social media. Today’s version has been tweaked slightly, although in all fairness, I can’t describe it as an upgrade.

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. On the 23rd of October 2014, she posted this on her social media stream, “Every thought you think impacts every one of the 75-100 trillion cells in your body at quantum speeds!”

On comparing the pair, Dr Leaf has added “brain” into the number of cells under the influence, and then massaged the opening slightly. I already had significant concern about the scientific validity of the previous meme in October. That hasn’t changed. Rather than improving the accuracy of her meme, Dr Leaf’s changes have left it missing the mark.

The fundamental fallacy that thoughts are the main controlling influence on our brain is still there. Thought is simply a conscious projection of one part of the overall function of our brain. Our brains function perfectly well without thought. Thought, on the other hand, doesn’t exist without the brain. Our brain cells influence our thoughts, not the other way around.

The myth of “quantum speeds” is still there. Our neurones interact with each other via electrochemical mechanisms. Like all other macroscopic objects, our brains follow the laws of classical physics. It’s not that quantum physics doesn’t apply to our brains, because quantum mechanics applies to all particles, but if you think you can explain macroscopic behaviour using quantum physics, then you should also try and explain Schrodingers Cat (see also chapter 13 of my book [1] for a longer discussion on quantum physics). Dr Leaf is particularly brave to make such bold statements about quantum physics when even quantum physicists find it mysterious.

What made me slightly embarrassed for Dr Leaf is the new part of her statement. In my blog on Dr Leaf’s previous attempt at this meme, I pointed out that Dr Leaf’s estimate of the number of cells in our body was more than three times that of the estimate of scientists at the Smithsonian (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/?no-ist). The fact that Dr Leaf so badly estimated, when all she needed to do was a one line Google search, suggested that she just made the number up. Failing to cite her source eroded at her credibility as a scientist.

Today, Dr Leaf still claims that there are 75-100 trillion cells in the brain and the body. The Smithsonian still hasn’t changed its estimate. Dr Leaf still hasn’t cited her source, and has ignored a world-renowned scientific institution. Perhaps Dr Leaf believes she knows more than the scientists at the Smithsonian? Perhaps she has a better reference? We’ll never know unless she cites it.

Taken as a whole, her meme is no closer to the truth than it was six weeks ago. Some may ask if it really matters. “Who cares if we have 37.2 trillion cells or 100 trillion cells or even 100 billion trillion”. “So what if our thoughts influence us or not.” If this was just a matter of a pedantic argument between some scientists over a coffee one morning,then I’d agree, it wouldn’t be so important. But Dr Leaf claims to be an expert, and more than 100,000 people read her memes on Facebook and many more on Twitter, Instagram, and the various other forms of social media she is connected to. Nearly every one of those people take Dr Leaf at her word. Ultimately the issue is trust.

If Dr Leaf can misreport such a simple, easily sourced fact, and not just once but twice now, then what does that mean for her other factoids and memes that she regularly posts on social media? If Dr Leaf incorrectly says that every thought we think impacts every cell in our body, then hundreds of thousands of people are wasting their mental and physical energy on trying to control their thoughts when it makes no real difference, and if anything might make their mental health worse [2, 3].

This is more than just a pedantic discussion over a trivial fact. These memes matter to people, and can potentially influence the health and wellbeing of many thousands of lives.

Peter Parker, quoting Voltaire, said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Just because Spiderman said it doesn’t diminish the profundity of that statement. This law of great power applies to Dr Leaf as much as it does to Spiderman. I hope and pray that she gives this law of great power the consideration it deserves.

Organic foods. They are amazingly popular. More than a million Australians buy organic foods regularly, and several million more buy it occasionally. The retail value of the organic market is estimated to be more than $1 billion annually. The assumption made by most people is that because it’s so popular, organic foods must be good for you, or at least have something going for them to make them worth all the hype.

Of course, just because something’s immensely popular and has a billion-dollar turnover doesn’t necessarily mean it’s beneficial (One Direction is a case-in-point).

In fact, despite organic foods being touted by their supporters as healthier, safer, and better for the environment than normal foods, actual scientific evidence fails to show any significant difference. I wrote about this earlier in the year (see: Borderline Narcissism and Organic Food). Since then, another large prospective trial deflated organic food’s bubble, with a British study showing no change in the incidence of cancer in women who always ate organic foods versus those who never ate organic foods [1].

The dearth of benefit from organic foods wouldn’t be so bad if they were just another guy in the line-up, something neutral and inert. Unfortunately, not only can organic produce be contaminated if farmed incorrectly [2, 3], but they come at an extraordinary premium, sometimes costing four times more than their conventional counterparts (Borderline Narcissism and Organic Food).

Dr Caroline Leaf is a communication pathologist and a self-titled cognitive neuroscientist. A couple of months ago, she let slip her intention to publish a book in 2015 about food. Who knows what she’ll actually say, but if today’s social media meme is anything to go by, it will likely follow the same pattern of her other teachings.

As I discussed recently, Dr Leaf does herself a disservice by not citing her sources. It’s very brave to write in a public forum that dark chocolate reduces the heart attack and stroke, since this could be interpreted as medical advice, which she is not qualified to give. As for the actual effects of dark chocolate, there is not a lot of quality evidence on dark chocolate on its own. A 2011 meta-analysis of general chocolate consumption on cardiovascular risk did indeed show a relative risk reduction of 37% [4]. But before you prescribe yourself two dark chocolate Lindt balls twice a day, consider that a relative risk reduction of 37% isn’t a big effect. Plus, the recommended 50 grams of 85% organic dark chocolate to attain the small benefit for your cardiovascular health contains just over 300 calories/1280 kJ (the average can of Coke contains 146 calories/ 600 kJ), and is 30% saturated fat (http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-green-blacks-organic-dark-chocolate-i110689). So any health benefit that may be associated with the poly-phenol content is likely nullified by the high saturated fat and calorie count.

What concerns me about Dr Leaf’s future foray into dietetics is that little word sitting quietly in her opening sentence: “organic”. Dr Leaf is an organic convert. But rather than act like a scientist that she claims to be, she preaches from her biases, ignoring the evidence that organic food is all hype and no substance, encouraging Christians everywhere to pay excessive amounts of money for something that’s of absolutely no benefit. Dr Leaf is welcome to eat whatever she chooses, but encouraging organic eating without clear benefit is more hindrance than help for most of her followers.

References

Bradbury, K.E., et al., Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in a large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom.Br J Cancer, 2014. 110(9): 2321-6 doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.148